nvr_get_storage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does declare the operation is read-only, which is the key safety fact. It also discloses the side effect of include_raw (raw reply added at data.raw), but says nothing about authentication requirements or whether the returned policy data is device-level or per-channel.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight clauses with no filler; the payload contents are front-loaded and the optional-parameter note comes last. Slightly dense punctuation but every phrase carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the read-only nature plus the parameter behavior are covered. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint relative to the many storage-adjacent siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, but the description fully explains it: include_raw=true appends the raw reply at data.raw. That is exactly the meaning an agent needs and it is absent from the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (storage/disks) and enumerates the concrete fields returned: status, capacity, free space, health, plus overwrite and recording-plan policy. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling nvr_list_disks, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus nvr_list_disks, nvr_get_system_info, or nvr_status. The '(read-only)' tag hints at the operation class but gives no selection criteria or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.